National Broadband Plan arrives, quoting Shakespeare

The new National Broadband Plan arrived today, stuffed with goodies like …

When the federal government spends more than a year developing a 300+ page report on national broadband policy, perhaps the last thing one expects to find in it is a quote from Shakespeare's Henry IV.

As two rebels plot their assault on the English king, the Welsh leader Owen Glendower brags that he can "call spirits from the vasty deep." The English Hotspur retorts, "Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for them?"

Anyone can talk a good game about conjuring broadband policy from the vasty deep of the FCC—but can those people actually implement their visions? The National Broadband Plan, released today, drops this bit of Shakespeare on readers at the bottom of page 11 to make a simple point: this Plan is about the art of the possible.

Perhaps a better quote from Henry IV might be from the lips of the famous comic figure Falstaff: "The better part of valor is discretion."

Competition and pricing

The plan is stuffed to bursting with moderate goods and decent challenges—100Mbps Internet to 100 million homes by 2020, 1Gbps Internet to an "anchor institution" in every community, smart grid support, universal Internet service of at least 4Mbps, a national public safety network. Such changes are necessary, important, and politically possible; what they are not is transformative on the issue of price and competition.

Look at all the competition (source: FCC)

Less than a page into the executive summary, the FCC notes that the number one way it can influence broadband is by designing policies "to ensure robust competition." In the chapter defining these incredible competition-promoting policies, the FCC notes that wireline ISP competition in the US is "surely fragile" and that the data shows "only limited evidence of price competition among providers." The FCC also recognizes that cable is running away from DSL, and in many communities will soon be the only true high-speed option.

What's the solution? Forget the conjuring of spirits from any deep, vasty or otherwise; what we get is more data collection, the call for a new broadband speed label, and several future "reviews" of FCC policies on wholesale and special access rates. These could lead to real changes years down the road... or they might not. The Plan essentially punts on setting up any goals in these areas beyond "advancing competition"—as we knew it would after our interview with the Plan's chief architect, Blair Levin.

It was probably a wise move, in the sense that the Plan would have been savaged (it's already taking incoming fire) had it suggested anything less nebulous... such as the recommendations of its own commissioned report on the subject from Harvard. But the Plan won't have any effect on broadband competition and pricing for years, and it offers few aspirational goals in that direction.

Not surprisingly, this disappointed groups like Free Press. "While the FCC does take some important steps toward a new framework for competition policy, many of the critical questions are deferred for further review," they noted.

More interesting was last week's comment by FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who railed against recent ISP price hikes (PDF) and concluded, "When prices rise across the industry, and where there are only a limited number of players in the game, we have to ask ourselves whether there is any meaningful competition in the marketplace. Moreover, when executives from major broadband providers indicate that they will only roll out faster speeds in the few markets where they have competition, our fears about whether meaningful competition exists should grow. If we fail to think deeply about these issues, consumers will suffer, and low-income Americans in particular will be left long behind."

Clyburn's key concern was price; little in the National Broadband Plan even attempts to address that concern, but what's there looks good. We'll take a closer look at specific proposals over the next few days. For the moment, here's a high-level overview of the most intriguing ideas.

Inside the Plan

Get ready for taxes. One of the Plan's recommendations is that "the federal government should investigate establishing a national framework for digital goods and services taxation."

Open it up, cable providers. The FCC proposes that video providers be required to install a new "gateway" device in subscribers' homes. The gateway would output video in a standard form easily accessible by third-party devices in the home.

Nutrition labels for broadband. The Plan calls for a new rulemaking process to "determine performance disclosure requirements for broadband." In essence, the FCC wants a standardized label, much like those that appear on new car windows and on food products. According to a mockup of one proposed design included in the Plan, such a label would show the actual and advertised speeds of a broadband connection (in both directions) along with a "star rating" showing the quality of the connection.

Example broadband labels (source: FCC)

Municipal broadband. The FCC wants to "clarify the Congressional mandate allowing state and local entities to provide broadband in their communities and do so in ways that use public resources more effectively."

4Mbps for everyone! The Universal Service Fund currently subsidizes voice service across the US, ensuring that it is not too costly even in the middle of the driest desert. The Plan calls for transitioning this fund to a new Connect America Fund that will offer both broadband Internet and voice with "at least 4Mbps actual download speeds" to everyone.

3G for everyone! Much like the Connect America Fund, a new Mobility Fund will ensure that no Americans are left behind in the wireless market, either. The fund will "ensure no states are lagging significantly behind the national average for 3G wireless coverage."

National public safety network. As we have reported already, the FCC is pushing ahead with plans to build a mobile broadband network for public safety's use. This will take Congressional action, as the FCC estimates it will cost $6.5 billion over 10 years just to build the thing, with plenty more cash needed to keep it running.

100 million at 100Mbps. The number one long-term goal of the Plan is one we've mentioned before: getting 100Mbps access to at least 100 million US homes by 2020. This goal looks pretty easy to meet; it's no moon shot. According to the FCC's own chart (p. 20) Verizon's FiOS will pass 17 million homes by the end of this year. In addition, Comcast will pass 50 million with high-speed DOCSIS 3.0 service. Time Warner Cable, Cox, and Cablevision will also roll out DOCSIS 3.0 to millions more homes this year. In other words, by the end of 2010, the infrastructure for this 10-year goal will already be in place; all that remains is the (relatively simple) job of turning up the speed dial from 50Mbps to 100Mbps.

500MHz of new spectrum. The Plan calls for 500 MHz of newly available spectrum set aside just for wireless broadband. This should be available by 2020, but at least 300 MHz of this should be available by 2015.

Access to infrastructure. The Plan wants to make it easier for companies to run fiber and other infrastructure elements. It calls for "low and more uniform rental rates for access to poles," better management of rights-of-way, and a new policy that would only provide federal dollars for roads and bridges if those projects allow "joint deployment of broadband infrastructure." In other words, once the ground is dug up, cities and states should allow anyone who wants to lay ducting and fiber to come in and do so along the roadway.

1Gbps to every community. We've already seen the tremendous reaction to Google's announcement that it would build a 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home testbed in some US city. The FCC wants to make sure that every city has access to such a pipe, and it calls for 1Gbps to an "anchor institution" in every community (think schools, hospitals, government buildings).

Where we're going

The level of detail found in the plan is truly staggering. This is an ambitious document that certainly reflects well on those who drafted it. With the single (and important) caveat that it immediately does little for wireline Internet pricing, the Plan does a terrific job of making the case that broadband is not only important but essential. The document's first words are, "Broadband is the great infrastructure challenge of the early 21st century."

We noted above that the Plan is more evolutionary than transformative, but one could make the case that the large number of evolutionary steps in the Plan do add up to something more than the sum of their parts. Certainly, if the Plan is implemented in anything like its current form, telecommunications in the US will look hugely different a decade from now. The entire communication system will be IP-based; subsidized Internet access will be available everywhere; wireless companies will have far more spectrum; the government will have funded and will control its own national broadband network; high-speed fiber connections will permeate every community; ISPs will be more accurate about the service they're selling; and smart grid devices will make use of broadband to help cut America's energy use.

While the Plan does contain a few high-end recommendations, its emphasis is clearly on the low end of the market. That's not a criticism; it's where the government often looks to set minimum standards and basic access policies for every citizen. In this case, the Plan proposes a wholesale shift away from the telephone network of the past to a baseline level of 3G wireless coverage and a baseline level of home Internet access. Those are the things that matter now; the old public communications grid of phone service and over-the-air TV isn't in history's dustbin quite yet, but the trajectory is clear.

With the release of the National Broadband Plan, the US has turned a corner. The future is packet switched, it is open standards, and it is open networks. Look for deep dives on individual topics from Ars in the days ahead.

Except that upstream capacity is STILL pathetic with these standards. What would be transformative is if the mandate required symmetrical bandwidth instead of a fat pipe down and a straw sized pipe upstream

The fact that the phone, cellular and cable companies are not complaining to anyone who will listen about how terrible the NBP is and how it will cause terrorism and rape and pillage the entire U.S. should clue us all in on one thing.

This plan obviously will do nothing to help the consumer out or address any the very real problems our Nation has concerning wireless and broadband.

Except that upstream capacity is STILL pathetic with these standards. What would be transformative is if the mandate required symmetrical bandwidth instead of a fat pipe down and a straw sized pipe upstream

I second such a mandate. With so much user-generated content being uploaded to places like YouTube, it only makes sense to have more upload bandwidth. The need for more upload bandwidth will only increase in the future as the web becomes more and more interactive and users share more media.

"The FCC also recognizes that cable is running away from DSL, and in many communities will soon be the only true high-speed option."

The reality that everyone fails to deal with is that content is much more of an issue than bandwidth. Microsoft's Channel 9 does not use Silverlight, their strategic product, and its adjustable bandwidth. Its standard grade video does not work over standard DSL. But, otherwise I have not found much limitation with my standard DSL. Nor have I found much difficulty in forgetting about Channel Nine. A minimum 4 megabit line sounds like a good idea. But it is not clear what the economic issues are in getting from a 720k DSL line to 4 megabits. If it means new cable, it probably does not cost much more to go to 100 megabits whether it is needed or not. On the other hand, probably the only visible reason to need that kind of bandwidth is high definition video on demand. I have yet to see the video content that justifies anything more than the current delivery system. Nor do many seem to value the visual content of that video. The local television stations that broadcast it think nothing of devaluing their product by disrupting it through all kinds of low information "public service" displays. Many consumers seem more excited by looking at it on some tiny phone screen. The much bigger issue for the federal government is whether some useful content can be stimulated for all this communication capability. One major candidate is a revolution in the quality of instructional materials for public schools. So far, I don't seem much if any visible effort in that area.

I wish the FCC luck in that. If they can free up 300MHz by 2015 nationwide for cellular-based broadband, LTE could actually compete with cable service (25Mb/s down would easy, possibly even 100Mb/s). DSL-what? Where they're going to get the 300MHz from is the problem...

Quote:

...and a new policy that would only provide federal dollars for roads and bridges if those projects allow "joint deployment of broadband infrastructure." In other words, once the ground is dug up, cities and states should allow anyone who wants to lay ducting and fiber to come in and do so along the roadway.

There is a odd version of this now - if a local municipality owns conduit, other local companies are allowed to come in and use it instead of having to install their own. It doesn't affect private ownership of conduits, only government.

Open it up, cable providers. The FCC proposes that video providers be required to install a new "gateway" device in subscribers' homes. The gateway would output video in a standard form easily accessible by third-party devices in the home.

I believe this is called a set top box. I hope im wrong (I didnt read the fcc doc) but i doubt it.

"...and smart grid devices will make use of broadband to help cut America's energy use. "

I think that's a reference to equipment that can understand current grid usage and decide to turn on later, instead.

Or the devices ask you to turn then down when the grid is at peak levels. California recently decided to allow peak-day pricing, which will charge $1.20/kWh premiums to large commercial and industrial customers (not residential) on the worst days of the year to push conservation (9-15 days per year expected). I would expect that when the smart grid arrives, this gets pushed out to residential customers too, though at a much lower cost per kWh.

Open it up, cable providers. The FCC proposes that video providers be required to install a new "gateway" device in subscribers' homes. The gateway would output video in a standard form easily accessible by third-party devices in the home.

I believe this is called a set top box. I hope im wrong (I didnt read the fcc doc) but i doubt it.

Yes, they appear to be proposing a new set-top box with a certain defined set of outputs. We'll bring you more on the proposal today or tomorrow, along with cable's response.

Better then nothing, but still does not go far enough. It does not sound like they are really planning for the future but instead they are simply re-aligning existing technology for more complete coverage.

Open it up, cable providers. The FCC proposes that video providers be required to install a new "gateway" device in subscribers' homes. The gateway would output video in a standard form easily accessible by third-party devices in the home.

I believe this is called a set top box. I hope im wrong (I didnt read the fcc doc) but i doubt it.

Yes, they appear to be proposing a new set-top box with a certain defined set of outputs. We'll bring you more on the proposal today or tomorrow, along with cable's response.

How about CableCARDS? One of the things I was most excited about when I bought my HDTV in late '07 was the ability to junk my cable box and simply slide a card into my TV.

Cable boxes are so freakin' obsolete nowadays it's not even funny. Why do I need to continue to pay $5/mo. for some ugly box that provides me with no added services? It enhances my cable service exactly ZERO. The only thing they use it for anymore is decryption and the CableCARD would've done that perfectly well.

Open it up, cable providers. The FCC proposes that video providers be required to install a new "gateway" device in subscribers' homes. The gateway would output video in a standard form easily accessible by third-party devices in the home.

I believe this is called a set top box. I hope im wrong (I didnt read the fcc doc) but i doubt it.

Yes, they appear to be proposing a new set-top box with a certain defined set of outputs. We'll bring you more on the proposal today or tomorrow, along with cable's response.

I found the section, them are some lofty goals. I think it sound alot like what cable card was suppose to be before the cable co's got there way. I'm hoping that it gets through.

Look for every aspect of this plan to be criticized by Republicans. "It's central planning!! Communism!"

Depends on how much remains simple aspirations and how much comes with actual funding and mandates attached to it.

The government can hope for all it wants; the sticky point politically is trying to have it force some solution down the pipe, which I'm not really seeing out of this. Yes, there is some more regulation (in terms of the labeling in particular), but it seems like the compliance costs of that should be relatively low.

The Connect America Fund idea, however, sounds like a graft-laden boondoggle waiting to happen. The question is, however, whether the inevitable loss of economic efficiency is offset by the value of having high-speed internet available out in the hinterlands.

The future is packet switched, it is open standards, and it is open networks

Does Open networks mean:- Net Neutrality and ISPs cannot favor and throttle site that pay them a special fee and block out / slow speed to sites that don't (effectively a vendor lock-in)- No de-throttling specific types of data (like ComCast did with torrents)?

I searched the National BB Plan web site (http://broadband.gov/) for 'neutrality' in The Plan option and got zero results. Is Net Neutrality not (supposed) to be a part of the National BB Plan?

he future is packet switched, it is open standards, and it is open networks

Does Open networks mean:- Net Neutrality and ISPs cannot favor and throttle site that pay them a special fee and block out / slow speed to sites that don't (effectively a vendor lock-in)- No de-throttling specific types of data (like ComCast did with torrents)?

I searched the National BB Plan web site (http://broadband.gov/) for 'neutrality' in The Plan option and got zero results. Is Net Neutrality not (supposed) to be a part of the National BB Plan?

I'm not sure you would see anything mentioning "Net Neutrality" in the NBP in fear of the Republicans taking a giant shit on it the moment they read it.

The future is packet switched, it is open standards, and it is open networks

Does Open networks mean:- Net Neutrality and ISPs cannot favor and throttle site that pay them a special fee and block out / slow speed to sites that don't (effectively a vendor lock-in)- No de-throttling specific types of data (like ComCast did with torrents)?

I searched the National BB Plan web site (http://broadband.gov/) for 'neutrality' in The Plan option and got zero results. Is Net Neutrality not (supposed) to be a part of the National BB Plan?

Open it up, cable providers. The FCC proposes that video providers be required to install a new "gateway" device in subscribers' homes. The gateway would output video in a standard form easily accessible by third-party devices in the home.

I believe this is called a set top box. I hope im wrong (I didnt read the fcc doc) but i doubt it.

Yes, they appear to be proposing a new set-top box with a certain defined set of outputs. We'll bring you more on the proposal today or tomorrow, along with cable's response.

TiVo was trying to push the FCC into forcing cable companies to allow devices to plug in and grab content over standard ethernet recently. I know ars mentioned something about it as well but can't remember what. It could be a reference to that... of course it will probably be implemented as some useless thing that doesn't work with anything but cable boxes or devices with an extra card rented from the cable company.

I'd rather pay taxes for an open, unlimited Internet access as a utility than pay a telecom company to cap my bandwidth, throttle my bandwidth, and violate net neutrality. The Internet is going to have to be like phone service or roads to break the monopoly of providers and get the infrastructure in place. This is one time capitalism as we know it has failed utterly to deliver a solution.

Nope, you're mistaken Catafriggm. It's 1 or fewer providers for 96% of America. And this is competition?? BTW, I have a sneaky suspicion that the ISPs will try to drive price hikes for faster service, rather than simply rolling it out as a free upgrade. So 100 million with 100 Mbps really is shooting for the moon, since competition has largely failed in the US for ISPs. Mostly because there isn't any.

Nope, you're mistaken Catafriggm. It's 1 or fewer providers for 96% of America. And this is competition?? BTW, I have a sneaky suspicion that the ISPs will try to drive price hikes for faster service, rather than simply rolling it out as a free upgrade. So 100 million with 100 Mbps really is shooting for the moon, since competition has largely failed in the US for ISPs. Mostly because there isn't any.

The 100 mbps per 100 million could happen tomorrow except the 100 mbps connection would cost $250/month. Simple, right? Imagine all of the people that would line up for that! And when none did the telco/cableco companies would say that there is no demand for speeds that fast and the FCC should lower their targets while conveniently dropping the "at that price" half of the equation. And all of the applications that could be built if 100 mbps were commonly available will just never get written (at least in the United States). Awesome! Hurray for big business! Hurray for "free" markets!

Nope, you're mistaken Catafriggm. It's 1 or fewer providers for 96% of America. And this is competition?? BTW, I have a sneaky suspicion that the ISPs will try to drive price hikes for faster service, rather than simply rolling it out as a free upgrade. So 100 million with 100 Mbps really is shooting for the moon, since competition has largely failed in the US for ISPs. Mostly because there isn't any.

The 100 mbps per 100 million could happen tomorrow except the 100 mbps connection would cost $250/month. Simple, right? Imagine all of the people that would line up for that!

Nope, you're mistaken Catafriggm. It's 1 or fewer providers for 96% of America. And this is competition?? BTW, I have a sneaky suspicion that the ISPs will try to drive price hikes for faster service, rather than simply rolling it out as a free upgrade. So 100 million with 100 Mbps really is shooting for the moon, since competition has largely failed in the US for ISPs. Mostly because there isn't any.

The 100 mbps per 100 million could happen tomorrow except the 100 mbps connection would cost $250/month. Simple, right? Imagine all of the people that would line up for that!

I would, since it's HALF what I pay for 1.5Mbps.

We aren't discussing T-1's here. Those are a completely different ballpark and don't really even comply with the "broadband" plan. T-1's are a dedicated line from the telephone company and have more to do with phones than they do with the Internet (yes, I realize T-1's are used for Internet access).

Except that upstream capacity is STILL pathetic with these standards. What would be transformative is if the mandate required symmetrical bandwidth instead of a fat pipe down and a straw sized pipe upstream

I second such a mandate. With so much user-generated content being uploaded to places like YouTube, it only makes sense to have more upload bandwidth. The need for more upload bandwidth will only increase in the future as the web becomes more and more interactive and users share more media.

Actually, it needs to go beyond simply mandating the ratio of download/upload speeds.

Some ISPs' terms of service still expressly prohibit running servers of any sort. That nonsense needs to go away. For example, in Comcast's terms of service:

Quote:

In general, the Policy prohibits uses and activities involving the Service that are illegal, infringe the rights of others, or interfere with or diminish the use and enjoyment of the Service by others. For example, these prohibited uses and activities include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment, either individually or in combination with one another, to:

[snipped other restrictions here]

* use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network (“Premises LAN”), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

So long as you're using your connection for legal means, the ISP should get zero say in what you can and can't use it for. If you want to run a slingbox to stream elsewhere, you should be allowed to do that if you wish. If you want to maintain a little media server with legal content that you can use wherever, you should be free to do that, too.

Now, the nice part is that not all ISPs are complete wankers like Comcast. Here in Hawai'i, Oceanic is the local Time Warner service, and their use policy doesn't single out servers.

We aren't discussing T-1's here. Those are a completely different ballpark and don't really even comply with the "broadband" plan. T-1's are a dedicated line from the telephone company and have more to do with phones than they do with the Internet (yes, I realize T-1's are used for Internet access).

Since we're talking about broadband access, I think it's relevant. It's the ONLY option (other than satellite - which is not usable) available to me for internet access.

We aren't discussing T-1's here. Those are a completely different ballpark and don't really even comply with the "broadband" plan. T-1's are a dedicated line from the telephone company and have more to do with phones than they do with the Internet (yes, I realize T-1's are used for Internet access).

Since we're talking about broadband access, I think it's relevant. It's the ONLY option (other than satellite - which is not usable) available to me for internet access.

Are you talking about residential or commercial? I hadn't realized that telephone companies would even install a T-1 to a house.

...sigh...you need to understand what free markets are before you use the large Internet providers as fodder for a swipe at them, because what we have now in this country for internet isn't a free market. You should notice that the FCC reports that competition is "fragile" not what happens in an open and free market, which by its nature has fierce competition.

We aren't discussing T-1's here. Those are a completely different ballpark and don't really even comply with the "broadband" plan. T-1's are a dedicated line from the telephone company and have more to do with phones than they do with the Internet (yes, I realize T-1's are used for Internet access).

Since we're talking about broadband access, I think it's relevant. It's the ONLY option (other than satellite - which is not usable) available to me for internet access.

Are you talking about residential or commercial? I hadn't realized that telephone companies would even install a T-1 to a house.

An "ambitious document" would have been nice.....but this one is not. A future of "open networks" is a great vision...but not one laid out in this plan. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've turned a corner...more like we've just began to acknowledge the turn is coming.

This "caveat" of not doing anything about wire-line pricing is more of a gaping chasm, and it's omission does NOT reflect well on the authors.

An "ambitious document" would have been nice.....but this one is not. A future of "open networks" is a great vision...but not one laid out in this plan. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've turned a corner...more like we've just began to acknowledge the turn is coming.

This "caveat" of not doing anything about wire-line pricing is more of a gaping chasm, and it's omission does NOT reflect well on the authors.

No, but combined with the current net neutrality proceeding, it's clear how the FCC is pushing: for open, packet-switched, IP-based networks available to all Americans. The TV broadcasters are going to start giving up spectrum, and USF money will be pulled back from traditional phone circuits. That's the change I was getting at.

96% of America with 2 or fewer providers. Cue WaltC and the other free-marketers telling people to vote with their wallets or shut up.

And yet we don't have a free market for broadband internet service as it is. Our current system is largely the result of government regulation that has set up our current system of incumbent carriers. A lot of those regulations made sense at the time they were passed, and they seem like an utter joke now.

Why do I get the feeling that more regulations aimed at fixing this problem will result in more of the same, more favor-currying, and more headaches for consumers? Once government has the authority to make winners and losers in the market by decree through regulation, you know the lobbying will truly start in earnest...